muckles:
Interesting the contradictions you see on trucknet,
On one thread posters are complaining that the reason that truck drivers get such a raw deal is because we don’t stick together.
On this thread posters are saying they’d cross a picket line of a group of workers who can stick together to protect thier working conditions.
Of course the fire service is vial in saving life and therefore lives could be put at risk if they strike. But the same could be said if road transport were to totally stop.
And what hasn’t been discussed here is why they are threatening industrial action.
Is it to protect their jobs or is it to protect threats to the level of service provided, so when you need the fire service they have the level of cover to respond to your emergency?
Or is it really the same thing. Fewer fire personal means people out of work and less emergency cover for us?
Firemen do a job I could never do, but it is the only job I know of that provides a bed for the nightshift. Like I put before I have worked at a lot of places where firemen work on there time of so taking work of others if they stop that maybe I could support them.
The Fire Brigade is a public service, the government has a duty to provide us with emergency services. This is why we pay taxes.
Yet it wastes so much of the people’s money on ■■■■ that they decide to waste it on, so there’s not enough left to pay for the stuff that taxes were introduced for.
The rest of the population should take a leaf out of the Firemen’s book and grow some balls and stand up to the thieving ■■■■■!
muckles:
Interesting the contradictions you see on trucknet,
On one thread posters are complaining that the reason that truck drivers get such a raw deal is because we don’t stick together.
On this thread posters are saying they’d cross a picket line of a group of workers who can stick together to protect thier working conditions.
Of course the fire service is vial in saving life and therefore lives could be put at risk if they strike. But the same could be said if road transport were to totally stop.
And what hasn’t been discussed here is why they are threatening industrial action.
Is it to protect their jobs or is it to protect threats to the level of service provided, so when you need the fire service they have the level of cover to respond to your emergency?
if i remember correctly,its something to do with their pensions
Or is it really the same thing. Fewer fire personal means people out of work and less emergency cover for us?
muckles:
Interesting the contradictions you see on trucknet,
On one thread posters are complaining that the reason that truck drivers get such a raw deal is because we don’t stick together.
On this thread posters are saying they’d cross a picket line of a group of workers who can stick together to protect thier working conditions.
Of course the fire service is vial in saving life and therefore lives could be put at risk if they strike. But the same could be said if road transport were to totally stop.
And what hasn’t been discussed here is why they are threatening industrial action.
Is it to protect their jobs or is it to protect threats to the level of service provided, so when you need the fire service they have the level of cover to respond to your emergency?
Or is it really the same thing. Fewer fire personal means people out of work and less emergency cover for us?
muckles:
Interesting the contradictions you see on trucknet,
On one thread posters are complaining that the reason that truck drivers get such a raw deal is because we don’t stick together.
On this thread posters are saying they’d cross a picket line of a group of workers who can stick together to protect thier working conditions.
Of course the fire service is vial in saving life and therefore lives could be put at risk if they strike. But the same could be said if road transport were to totally stop.
And what hasn’t been discussed here is why they are threatening industrial action.
Is it to protect their jobs or is it to protect threats to the level of service provided, so when you need the fire service they have the level of cover to respond to your emergency?
Or is it really the same thing. Fewer fire personal means people out of work and less emergency cover for us?
Surely it’s only a contradiction if it’s said by the same person, surely it’s different opinions by different people?
muckles:
Interesting the contradictions you see on trucknet,
On one thread posters are complaining that the reason that truck drivers get such a raw deal is because we don’t stick together.
On this thread posters are saying they’d cross a picket line of a group of workers who can stick together to protect thier working conditions.
Of course the fire service is vial in saving life and therefore lives could be put at risk if they strike. But the same could be said if road transport were to totally stop.
And what hasn’t been discussed here is why they are threatening industrial action.
Is it to protect their jobs or is it to protect threats to the level of service provided, so when you need the fire service they have the level of cover to respond to your emergency?
Or is it really the same thing. Fewer fire personal means people out of work and less emergency cover for us?
Surely it’s only a contradiction if it’s said by the same person, surely it’s different opinions by different people?
Very true, and I’ll admit I didn’t check to see if any posters had contradicted themselves. But I thought the difference in was worth pointing out.
this is what there sticking together for to try and stop this sort of thing and by the way the scab firefighter will have about 10 weeks training to save you from a fire or cut you out of your vehicle after a smash just hope theres no industrial fires
muckles:
Interesting the contradictions you see on trucknet,
On one thread posters are complaining that the reason that truck drivers get such a raw deal is because we don’t stick together.
On this thread posters are saying they’d cross a picket line of a group of workers who can stick together to protect thier working conditions.
Of course the fire service is vial in saving life and therefore lives could be put at risk if they strike. But the same could be said if road transport were to totally stop.
And what hasn’t been discussed here is why they are threatening industrial action.
Is it to protect their jobs or is it to protect threats to the level of service provided, so when you need the fire service they have the level of cover to respond to your emergency?
Or is it really the same thing. Fewer fire personal means people out of work and less emergency cover for us?
Firemen do a job I could never do, but it is the only job I know of that provides a bed for the nightshift. Like I put before I have worked at a lot of places where firemen work on there time of so taking work of others if they stop that maybe I could support them.
Thousands of people have part-time jobs, I don’t think that firemen are doing anything wrong by working on their days off.
I think that people should google Alison Hume before saintifying the Firefighters.Useless shower of nobs stood around waiting for a woman to die rather than save her life.They have a very good pay and no need to take on part time work in the current financial climate.
alamcculloch:
I think that people should google Alison Hume before saintifying the Firefighters.Useless shower of nobs stood around waiting for a woman to die rather than save her life.They have a very good pay and no need to take on part time work in the current financial climate.
H&S prevented the fireman who had gone down the hole to get her from using the same kit to get her out. All to do with managers’ rules, and nothing to do with the man who risked his life to try to save hers. Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.
I used to live in East Anglia and pretty much every winter firemen would improvise and use breathing apparatus to go into rivers, dykes etc and pull folk out of their cars from under 10 ft of water or more in the most dangerous conditions.
In at least one case I recall, they got someone back from being clinically dead by getting the water out of their lungs and administering oxygen. The water was so cold that even though the person had drowned about 20 minutes before, their brain had gone into suspended animation.
Over the years the fire services have wasted millions on fire engines that were too heavy for the road, control centres that never opened etc etc. Now they are trying to get out of paying pensions to firemen to try to compensate.
You can bet that the people who ordered the fire engines and control centres were all given huge pay-offs to reward their failure.
alamcculloch:
I think that people should google Alison Hume before saintifying the Firefighters.Useless shower of nobs stood around waiting for a woman to die rather than save her life.They have a very good pay and no need to take on part time work in the current financial climate.
H&S prevented the fireman who had gone down the hole to get her from using the same kit to get her out. All to do with managers’ rules, and nothing to do with the man who risked his life to try to save hers. Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.
I used to live in East Anglia and pretty much every winter firemen would improvise and use breathing apparatus to go into rivers, dykes etc and pull folk out of their cars from under 10 ft of water or more in the most dangerous conditions.
In at least one case I recall, they got someone back from being clinically dead by getting the water out of their lungs and administering oxygen. The water was so cold that even though the person had drowned about 20 minutes before, their brain had gone into suspended animation.
Over the years the fire services have wasted millions on fire engines that were too heavy for the road, control centres that never opened etc etc. Now they are trying to get out of paying pensions to firemen to try to compensate.
You can bet that the people who ordered the fire engines and control centres were all given huge pay-offs to reward their failure.
re the alison hume case i’m sorry,but i would have said ■■■■ the job,and got the woman out.i think the “shame” lies with all concerned in the alison hume case.how can any of them live with that? h and s rules? ■■■■■■■■-they were all grown men that should have stood up to the ■■■■■■■ manager!! a woman died because they wouldnt break the “rules”
Shame on you Gasgas, thank you Andrew S.How any uniformed emergency personnel could arrive on scene and simply stand doing nothing beggars belief.They could have made an attempt at life saving.
I’ve just googled this and it clearly states that SENIOR FIRE OFFICERS were criticised for the botched rescue attempt. You cannot for one minute blame the firefighters on the ground who would have attempted something in the initial stages only to be told by a senior office to stop due to H&S reasons.
The fire service carry out thousands of successful rescues every year and to slag them off just because one goes wrong is a bit harsh in my opinion.
If the fireman had disobeyed a direct order and put her in the harness and the woman had slipped from the harness and fallen back down the mine, what would have happened to the fireman?
He’d have certainly lost his job, been painted as an idiot in the media, and probably been prosecuted.
This case is an equipment issue, a training issue and a procedure issue, which is why senior staff were criticised. No one in possession of the facts has criticised the conduct of the man who went into the mineshaft to help the woman.
alamcculloch:
Shame on you Gasgas, thank you Andrew S.How any uniformed emergency personnel could arrive on scene and simply stand doing nothing beggars belief.They could have made an attempt at life saving.
They didn’t stand doing nothing…one man went down the shaft to help her, but didn’t have suitable equipment to lift her out.
During the last firefighter’s strike when green goddesses were used and people were bleating on about how unsuitable they were I asked a question which no one seemed able to answer. My question is
Why cant the Army, Navy, Air Force or whoever has been tasked with replacing the fire fighters just use the fire engines which are parked up in the fire station?
I have no knowledge of the fire service so there’s probably a simple answer.
Bale Bandit:
During the last firefighter’s strike when green goddesses were used and people were bleating on about how unsuitable they were I asked a question which no one seemed able to answer. My question is
Why cant the Army, Navy, Air Force or whoever has been tasked with replacing the fire fighters just use the fire engines which are parked up in the fire station?…
I harped on about exactly the same thing at the time, to much derision, it’s Government property after all, innit?
Reminds me of all these-full timers who twine about other drivers using their own personal, private wagon (which is actually owned by the firm) when they’re on time off.
Having said that, a few days’ training on a Green Goddess is nothing compared to what’s involved with one of these Inspector Gadget-type machines doing the rounds nowadays.
If the fireman had disobeyed a direct order and put her in the harness and the woman had slipped from the harness and fallen back down the mine, what would have happened to the fireman?
He’d have certainly lost his job, been painted as an idiot in the media, and probably been prosecuted.
This case is an equipment issue, a training issue and a procedure issue, which is why senior staff were criticised. No one in possession of the facts has criticised the conduct of the man who went into the mineshaft to help the woman.
so it was better that they did nothing and she died was it? i would rather lose my job than stand by and watch someone die,wouldnt you? perhaps not…
and I’ll admit I didn’t check to see if any posters had contradicted themselves. But I thought the difference in was worth pointing out.
